LexRAM KISHAN versus SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 1 S.C.R. 538 RAM KISHAN v. SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS. Contempt Petition No. 336 of 2013 IN Civil Appeal No. 4985 of 2012 JANUARY 17, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] C Contempt of Court Disobedience of court's orders - Court directing reinstatement with consequential benefits as a/so back wages - Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of order as 0 petitioner was denied benefit of re-designated post on a higher pay scale after his compulsory retirement - Held: Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and, therefore, standard of proof required is beyond all reasonable doubt - If two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be E maintainable - In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful' - Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for alleged contemnor to comply with the F order, he cannot be punished - In the absence of any provision, the statutory authority cannot be asked to pay the salary to two persons for one post, particularly in view of the fact that the person appointed to the post had never been a party to the /is, nor her re-designation/promotion had ever G been challenged - No case is made out to initiate contempt proceedings against respondents. WORDS AND PHRASES: H 538 RAM KISHAN v. SH. TARUN BAJAJ & ORS. 539 Word 'wilful' - Connotation of in the content of A proceedings for contempt of court. In a writ petition filed, by the applicant challenging his compulsory retirement, the single Judge of the High Court directed his reinstatement with all consequential 8 benefits, but without back wages for the period he was out of job. In the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, the Supreme Court allowed him back wages. The Department denied him the benefit of re-designated pay/ post and the pay-scale of a higher post wherein after his C compulsory retirement another person had been appointed. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the contempt petition alleging disobedience of the Court's order. Dismissing the petition, the Court D HELD: 1.1. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power to punish an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law. Contempt proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof E required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. (para 9) [545-B-C, E] V. G. Nigam & Ors. v. Kedar Nath Gupta & Anr., AIR 1992 F SC 2153; Chhotu Ram v. Urvashi Gulati & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3468; Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors. 2002 (2) SCR 346 = AIR 2002 SC 1405; Bank of Baroda v. Sadruddin Hasan Daya & Anr. 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 764 = AIR 2004 SC 942; Sahdeo alias Sahdeo Singh v. State of G U.P. & Ors. 2010 (2) SCR 1086 = (2010) 3 sec 705; and National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Tuncay Alankus & Anr. AIR 2013 SC 1299 - referred to. H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 1 S.C.R. A 1.2. In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is 'wilful'. The act has to be done with a "bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubborniy, obstinately or perversely". Even if there ls a disobedience of an order, B but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. "Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default c or misconduct". [para 10] [545-G; 546-8, C-D] S. Sundaram Pillai etc. v V. R. Pattabiraman 1985 (2) SCR 643 =AIR 1985 SC 582; Rakapal/i Raja Rama Gopala Rao v. Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Anr. 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 115 =AIR 1989 SC 2185; Niaz Mohammad & Ors. D etc.etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 720 = AIR 1995 SC 308; Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa 2000 (2) SCR 13 = AIR 2000 SC 1880; Mis. Ashok Paper Kamgar Union & Ors. v. Dharam Godha & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 105; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Md. 11/iyas, 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 395 E = AIR 2006 SC 258; and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur 2013 (3) SCR 27 = (2013) 9 SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.